Author
Topic: Bible Contradiction Graph (Read 47287 times)

Now a days Goodish is a ethical positive word for human life. Goodish provides guidelines for physical and religious wellness, success and harmony, and makes a daring report about poverty and wealth. GODISM: Releasing the Power to Live is a timely guide to profuse and joyous living. Life is a complex weave of beliefs, issues of morality, commentary on modern life, and holiness Egoism leads as a guide to living.

Egoism is a philosophy of boundless love and abundant living and encourages you to believe in yourself, and causes you to know that you are the center of the universe and your vital force flows from the Universal Mind, and there is power within you which comes from the Universal Mind. God also seems to be a highly charged word for Atheists. To them it seems to be equal to Religion. They often point to God as an imaginary friend and then refer to belief in fairies and Santa Claus. God establishes the moral absolute standard and man chooses to accept it or refuse it.

GOD must be afar the universe and outside of time, just as we must be beyond the line in order to "take it in all at once. Even if this is so, it is a noteworthy fact that the idea of an all-seeing God has had important, salutary effects in Western thought. For one thing, divine knowledge is one way of describing the impartiality towards which morally responsive people struggle without being able fully to attain it. By trying to see social and moral relations a bit more as an all-seeing God might see them, we are encouraged to treat those outside our immediate circle of connection more fairly and to take into better account the lasting penalty of our individual and collective actions.

The top being that is omnipotent and omniscient. Since he is omnipotent, he has the authority to create a stone so big that he himself cannot lift, and at the same time he must be able to lift it. And since he is omniscient, he has the power to know everything, even what you will do tomorrow, thus, you have no free will.

OK, I'm not really the village idiot when it comes to computers but I've not been able to download this graph so I can read any of it. It's a beautiful piece of work with its massive red arched lines and looks pretty, but I'd like to be able to actually read it.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

The Bible is a massive compiled account. Harping about those details is like denying a hit-and-run because the various accounts (drivers, passengers, bystanders, medics, police and insurers) vary slightly in detail, emphasis and point of view.

Otherwise known as UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE. It concerns me when people fail to see blatant flaws in their own arguments.

^^ Ok, so I suffered through several minutes of the podcast (and I SWEAR the scene of the knights in Holy Grail going "GET ON WITH IT" flashed through my mind several times). I've only listened to the first two and this guy's argumentation was the same for both. Maybe it was translated wrong and we don't know what the author meant. Or to put the second one differently ... If we assume the authors aren't contradicting then they're not contradicting. ... erm, yeah, ok. If I assume the sky is green with orange polka dots, then it's green with orange polka dots.So, basically, he's ignoring the fundamental problem, which is that, the bible is unclear on some things. Some things in the bible are up for debate. Some things in the bible depend on the interpretation of the reader. It is not an absolute, either in the King James version (which was used for the 'big orange rainbow' he keeps mentioning) or in any other. Reader A can gleam one meaning from a passage and Reader B can get something different from that same passage. And there's no way[1] to settle who's right and who's wrong. A and B can hurl scripture at each other[2] until hell freezes over[3] and never reach a conclusion.

For completeness sake ... he claims copy error for the first contradiction. Which may or may not be true, but it makes it all the more asenine for anyone to pick up an English bible and wave bout any part of it as if it has any special meaning, after all, you're holding a copy of a copy of a copy of a ... .

As for the translation error card ... this leads to the same problem as above, you're holding a translation of a translation of a translation of a ...And even if you were to get ahold of the original untranslated text, you're left with the problem that different parts of the bible were written in different languages and in order to compare any of it, you will need at least one translation. And believe me, even for languages as close together as English and Dutch, exact translation is not always possible ... never mind between languages as distent from eachother as ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek. Some concepts quite simply can't be translated.And if you're a biblical literalist, then you accept the tower of Babel story. Which means that your god intended to leave behind a flawed bible from the get go.Which, incidentally, is an odd parallel between christianity and islam. There's a holy book, which tells you how to live, but you can never be sure that what you're reading is god/allah's true intent. Only difference is that the quran says this explicitly while the bible only implies it.

Oh and while on the subject of completeness, he also pulls the massively dishonest argument of "Well it's not YOUR bible, so you shouldn't be interpreting it in the first place."

Firstly, let me start of and apologise for the sorta blurb at the start. I myself skipped that part and went straight to he's contradiction part. And if he did say "Well it's not YOUR bible, so you shouldn't be interpreting it in the first place." which I didn't hear, then I sorta regret putting that up.

I agree with what you said at some parts. The transcription especially. In the time, copying scrolls was a MASSIVE deal, and even failure to capitalise a letter meant redoing the entire page. I find it hard to believe that all transcripts were written incorrectly. The part I though held weight, was lack of knowledge of the original writer. Samuel wrote Samuel, and Ezra wrote Chronicles. If Ezra's circle only had knowledge of he's 300 victory, but Samuel had knowledge of the 800 defeat, it may seem like a contradiction but both wrote about the same guy, and why he was great for the greatest achievement they knew about him.

The second contradiction isn't so much a contradiction. Romans reads: "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God.". It is saying "If he was, then he might have something to boast about." It doesn't say he was justified by works

The second contradiction isn't so much a contradiction. Romans reads: "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God.". It is saying "If he was, then he might have something to boast about." It doesn't say he was justified by works

Yes, Romans 4:2 is the "works don't matter" part of the contradiction ... the other part being James 2:21 which says that works are a requirement.

Logged

2 Interwebs 7:42And in the seventh year, thou shalt cast out the Nam from thine assembly for he haveth a potty mouth.

Then I don't support what he said. Why shouldn't people who don't believe be forbidden from reading the Bible. And if they were, how would they verify anything anyone ever said about it if they don't become a Christian.

I think that verse 22 sheds light on this. "You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did". It is essentially saying we can see Abraham's faith through the works he did. Works don't equal faith, but faith without action/works, isn't really faith

^^ which is still in contradiction with Romans 4:2.I've come across a number of christians who go "Haha, dumb Muslims, their religion requires works! How silly is that."[1]And according to Romans 4:2 they're correct in saying so ... the Romans 4:2 god doesn't care about works. But ... James 2:21 says you had better do works or your faith is dead. The James 2:21 god DOES want works. Two different gods in one inerrant holy book. Technically, due to SPAG[2] and the tendency by people to cherry-pick whatever verse suits them, there are a billion different christian gods and all of them equally (in)valid as the next.

BTW, islam makes just as big a hash of works as christianity. Quran says, you need to do work.Quran says, this is so others can check up on youQuran says, you can't judge another's faith, neither by his works, nor by his fortunes in this lifeQuran says, regardsless of outward displays, Allah knows if your faith is genuine in your heart... what was the point of works again?[3]

Best someone who believes Islam answer the second part of your question.

Personally, I admire many Muslims based on their dedication to their faith. If half the people who call themselves "Christian" were as dedicated to their apparent belief as some Muslims are, I don't think Christianity would have such a bad reputation. By this I mean prayer and observing traditions/laws, not the extreme views some take.

The works Paul was talking about in Romans 4 is actually the works of obeying Moses' law, and not things we do as a result of out belief. Romans 3:28 clarifies what works are, which are based on the law. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds(works) of the law." (NKJV Rom3:28). So the works/deeds referenced by the two authors are different. One is the works of the law (aka animal sacrifices), and one is works of faith (helping the needy)

See? That's the SPAG I mentioned the other day. You twist and turn the scripture around until it makes sense inside your skull.[1] Then, you convince yourself that,[2] since it makes sense inside your skull, this is what your god must have meant ... 27 translations and 152 copies ago. That guy on the podcast you originally posted does pretty much the same. He guesses at which errors were made in translation/copying and when he finds one that allows him to explain away the contradiction, that hey, that MUST be what his god intended. It's really no different from Harold Camping's predictions.He arbitrarily assigned numerical values to words, arbitrarily applied calculations to them, arbitrarily converted the result into a date and arbitrarily picked a biblical passage that he linked to that date. And, yeah, the result of this chain of at utterly random steps MUST have been what his god intended. He guessed right at EVERY turn.

Funny thing is, you don't do this just with your own holy book, you do it with the quran too. You admire those who pray and observe traditions/laws but not those who pray and observe the tradition/law that all jews must be killed[3] ... which the quran says a number of times. So, you admire muslims, based on which verses from their holy book they ignore? ... weird.

I admire their dedication to the statutes they are given to worship their god yes. Since most "Christians" can't even make it to church at times like Easter and Christmas, I admire their adherence to their (or parts of) faith.

So because I provide a different interpretation to the one you've taken, I'm twisting it to my own devices, and your view isn't twisted in the slightest? I find that hard to believe.

In the context of chapter 4, like I said, if you go back to the previous chapter, we see what the definition of "works" are in this context. And before you say "That is in a completely different chapter, so you can't make that assumption", chapters weren't in the original text, they have been added for reference and separation sake, thus the context must be taken from earlier in the letter/book. That is exactly there chapter 3 happens to be. Though I would ask that you prove the works he is talking about is religious works (feeding the poor) and not law works (as mentioned earlier in the book), then I may consider the contradiction as having grounds.

And this would be something we refer to as "moving the goalposts". Both texts specifically refer to Abraham. Romans says none of his works matter, James says that at least one of his works (the part where Abraham choses the voices in his head over his own son) did matter and that it was in fact a requirement. Both passages also expressly refer to "works of law", as you put it. The only difference between the two is that the distance between the mention of the law and the mention of the works is a few verses bigger in James. So, if we read the context of Romans, we see that it's one kind of works being talked about and if we ignore the context of James, we could paste a different label on the works and the contradiction is gone.In any event, the mere fact that we're having this discussion is proof enough that the interpretation of the bible depends on the reader. So ... the bible indeed contains no contradictions, if you make a special effort to avoid seeing contradictions.

Right, and I'm trying to understand what people see as a contradiction in their interpretation, and provide an alternative interpretation for what is read. And doesn't the bible contain contradictions based on the same methodology you suppose? That if you simply read it a certain way, you can make it have contradictions?

This seems more an English discussion then. Where one person's view is wrong, because another person's view is contradictory to the initial view.

That is true. Interpreting the sky is blue "because it looks it" is a much weaker explanation than the sky is blue "due to scattering of light".

I think I may have been portraying myself wrongly here. I don't think it is only faith that saves someone, works are also expected/required. But the works of say animal sacrifices is no longer required, so would be considered a fruitless/dead work.

But the works of say animal sacrifices is no longer required, so would be considered a fruitless/dead work.

Says who? Not Jesus ... http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm ... Every last bit of 'the law' still applies. Ever eat any shrimp? No heaven for you.Better start slashing open some goats to appease this decidedly non-pagan god of yours.

Logged

2 Interwebs 7:42And in the seventh year, thou shalt cast out the Nam from thine assembly for he haveth a potty mouth.

Says who? Not Jesus ... http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm ... Every last bit of 'the law' still applies. Ever eat any shrimp? No heaven for you.Better start slashing open some goats to appease this decidedly non-pagan god of yours.

Quote from: Luke:16v17

But that doesn’t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God’s law to be overturned

Jesus fulfils what was required of the law. It would be like sacrificing two animals before Jesus came. He is our sacrifice, so sacrificing further doesn't make us any cleaner

Downloadable graph connecting all the biblical contradictions to their corresponding verses.

Enjoy!

019

Great graph! Steve Wells is the gentleman who can mainly be credited for this graph. I went ahead and bought his "Bible". It is called "The Skeptics Annotated Bible" and it lists all the contradictions, absurdities, and atrocities in the Bible. He did a great work and would recommend this Bible to any skeptic. It is definitely worth the $30!

Logged

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)